Understanding Consumer Experiences and Insurance Outcomes Following Plan Disenrollment in the Nongroup Insurance Market

Disenrollment from health plans purchased on Affordable Care Act (ACA) Marketplaces is frequent; little is known whether disenrollment from off-Marketplace plans is as common or about the experiences and consequences of disenrollment. Using longitudinal administrative data on 2017-2018 nongroup plan enrollment linked with survey data, we analyze plan disenrollment in one regional insurance carrier servicing three states. Overall, 71% of enrollees disenrolled from their 2017 plan. Disenrollment was associated with purchasing through an ACA Marketplace, the carrier making significant changes to an enrollee’s plan benefit design, being healthier, being younger, and paying a higher premium for their 2017 plan in 2018. Experiencing financial burden or poor access to preferred providers was not associated with disenrollment. Most disenrollees (93.2%) enrolled in other coverage, often at a lower premium, but lacked confidence that they could afford needed care. These results can inform policy to support enrollees through coverage transitions and foster stability in the nongroup market.

Cornerstones of ‘fair’ drug coverage: appropriate cost sharing and utilization management policies for pharmaceuticals

At the heart of all health insurance programs lies ethical tension between maximizing the freedom of patients and clinicians to tailor care for the individual and the need to make healthcare affordable. Nowhere is this tension more fiercely debated than in benefit design and coverage policy for pharmaceuticals. This paper focuses on three areas over which there is the most controversy about how to judge whether drug coverage is appropriate: cost-sharing provisions, clinical eligibility criteria, and economic-step therapy and required switching. In each of these domains we present ‘ethical goals for access’ followed by a series of ‘fair design criteria’ that can be used by stakeholders to drive more transparent and accountable drug coverage.

Surgical vs. Nonsurgical Management for Humeral Shaft Fractures; Preference Among Orthopaedic Surgeons

Background. Determining trends in managing humeral shaft fractures may help identify variation in practice which might benefit design of clinical guidance. We aimed to determine the practice of members of the British Elbow and Shoulder Society (BESS) in managing humeral shaft fractures. Methods and materials. An electronic survey was sent to members of BESS. Questions related to preferred surgical and nonsurgical approaches for management of humeral shaft fractures. This was divided into management of proximal, middle and distal third diaphyseal fractures. Results. 91 fully completed responses were analysed. Nonsurgical management was preferred by 90.1% (n=82) for middle-third and 80.2 % (n=73) for proximal third fractures but there was an almost even split in favouring surgical (52.7%, n=48) and nonsurgical (42.8%, n=39) treatment for distal third fractures. There was great variation in how to deal with a humeral shaft fracture associated with radial nerve palsy with an almost equal divide between those favouring a surgical and nonsurgical approach for mid-shaft or distal third fractures. Conclusions. 1. The management preference for humeral shaft fractures amongst surgeons is highly variable. 2. This may be partly attributed to the sparsity of high-quality evidence. 3. Well-designed randomised trials or pro­spective cohort studies may help further guide management of these injuries.

Research for Practitioners: The Growing Complexity of Benefit Design

Benefit strategies are undergoing a major transformation and repurposing as organizations shift their focus from attraction and retention to engagement and performance. This research brief highlights the variety of innovative offerings now in play, the strategies that drive them, and key issues HR and compensation practitioners need to address.

Closing the part D coverage gap and out-of-pocket costs for multiple sclerosis drugs

ABSTRACTObjective:To determine whether closing the Part D coverage gap (“donut hole”) between 2010 and 2019 lowered patients’ out-of-pocket costs for disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) for multiple sclerosis (MS).Methods:Using nationwide Medicare Formulary and Drug Pricing Files, we analyzed Part D drug benefit design and DMT prices in 2010, 2016, and 2019. We calculated average monthly list prices for DMTs available in each year (4 DMTs in 2010, 11 DMTs in 2016, and 14 DMTs in 2019). We projected patients’ annual out-of-pocket cost for each DMT alone under a standard Part D plan in that year. We estimated potential savings attributable to closing the coverage gap between 2010 to 2019 (beneficiaries’ cost-sharing dropped from 100% to 25%) under three scenarios; no increase in price, an inflation-indexed price increase (3% annually), and the observed price increase.Results:Median monthly DMT prices rose from $2804, $5987, to $7009 over the years 2010, 2016, and 2019 respectively. Median projected annual out-of-pocket costs rose from $5916, $6229, to $6618. With unchanged or inflation-indexed DMT prices changes, closing the coverage gap would have reduced annual out-of-pocket costs by $2260 (38% reduction) and $1744 (29% reduction) respectively. Despite having the lowest monthly price, generic glatiramer acetate had among the highest out-of-pocket costs ($6731 to $6939 a year) in 2019.Conclusions:Medicare Part D beneficiaries can pay thousands of dollars yearly out-of-pocket for DMTs. Closing the Part D coverage gap did not reduce out-of-pocket costs for patients because of simultaneous increases in DMT prices.